Outcomes of Pancreas Retransplantation After Simultaneous Kidney-Pancreas Transplantation Are Comparable to Pancreas After Kidney Transplantation Alone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of contemporary data describing the results of pancreas retransplantation (PRT). As a measure of utility, we wished to determine whether PRT could produce equivalent short-term and long-term recipient outcomes to primary pancreas after kidney (PAK) transplantation. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 96 consecutive pancreas only transplants performed from 2003 to May 2012. Primary PAK transplants (n = 78) were compared to PRT (n=18). RESULTS: Donor and recipient demographics were similar. Pancreas graft survival was similar for PAK and PRT at 1 year (88.2% vs. 100%) and 3 years (85.1% vs. 85.1%). Pancreas graft failure occurred in 14 PAK and two PRT patients with a mean follow-up of 61.6 ± 38.7 and 37.8 ± 26.1 months, respectively. There were no differences in postoperative length of stay (9.9 days vs. 8.7 days; P = 0.9) or postoperative complications in the first 3 months (47.4% vs. 38.9%, P = 0.6). At 3-year follow-up, both groups had comparable HBA1c (0.06 vs. 0.05; P = 0.8), serum creatinine (116.6 μmol/L v 131.7 μmol/L; P = 0.09), and oral glucose tolerance tests. CONCLUSION: Pancreas retransplantation is a safe and effective therapy for select recipients after graft loss. Pancreas retransplantation is associated with the same risk of postoperative complications and has similar intermediate-term graft survival compared to primary PAK transplantation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".